make a separate page for it (if that's wordpress), it sucks in that narrow blog column. 

I plan on doing that.

Embedding it this way was the quickest and easiest way to do it. Before I spent too much time on it I want to know if anyone is even remotely interested in something like this. 

So demanding in tone. After all it's a free service. :) And you linked to screenshots etc. 

sorry for mixing threads and subjects. Anyway. 

in response to the score questions

[1] If you dont like the "theory" of scoring, simply ignore the score and read the review.

[2] Some people like scores, myself included. It provides a quick, easy way to rate and compare maps. I have been scoring map reviews this way for 5 years, and im not planning on changing it anytime soon. :P 

i like to read the reviews... i dont take much atencion to scores :) 

what is your "theory"?
"this way" - what way?
Could you please explain how exactly you calculate the score and what it means
(what #s stand for bad/mediocre/good/excellent/) 

Breakfast at Twilight (by Hrimfaxi)
Wicked Base (by trinca)

http://underworld.planetquake.gamespy.com/index.html 

A Scores section explaining briefly the scoring was already on my FAQ page but i have updated it to include a breakdown of what the various scores roughly mean:

http://underworld.planetquake.gamespy.com/faq.html

Why do you score the reviews out of 20? How do you arrive at the scores?

In my opinion, there are two basic elements to any FPS map, one element is GAMEPLAY, the other is ARCHITECTURE & DESIGN. For these two elements i mark each out of 10, hence the total score is out of 2*10 = 20. If a map gets 19/20 or above it is a truly exceptional map and gets a gold medal of recommendation.

Here is an approximate breakdown of what the scores mean:
awful/poor: 1-10
ok/average: 11-14
good: 15-16
very good: 17-18
exceptional: 19
perfect: 20

let the arguing commence. ;) 

The whole point is that we don't know what the hell your standards are on "gameplay" and "architecture & design," except by looking at maps you've already reviewed and poring through what you've said in each review.

I'd like to see you write something for new mappers about how to get a 20/20. 

I thought Marcher was 20/20, the best Q1SP yet made in my opinion, but UWF later downgraded it to 19/20 (presumably because there's still some theoretical room for improvement). But if Marcher isn't perfect, I dunno what is. Also, lol, I thought Masque should have been an 18 or 19, but that's why I don't review my own stuff.

To be honest my scores are pretty vague. I gave Wicked Base a 17/20 initially, but looking back UWF downgrading its score is reasonable, as I also gave Lunaran's last a 17, which is (no offence to good friend Trinca) a plainly superior map, which I should have given an 18 at least.

It's hard to account for bias as well. I actually wanted to give Hrimfaxi's frostbite a 19 or 20/20.

It's hard to keep in mind all the stuff I've scored previously when trying to score something at present. Never the less, UWF has a better grasp on the score system than I do, and I agree with him that there is a use for a player who just wants to know if a map is so-so (under 15), worth downloading (16+), or DEMANDS TO BE PLAYED (18+).

I think the solution is either ignore the scores, or just view them as a general guide for the casual player. 

As many scores seem pretty arbitrary. Compare recent reviews with older ones.

Maybe it would be more helpful to seperate the two elements, so scores read like "architecture: 8/10", "gameplay: 6/10", giving reader a clearer idea how the final score was conceived. 

All of the above debate demonstrates precisely why reviews should not have scores. You guys are providing a very convincing argument against using a scoring system at all.

At the very least, we all should accept the plainly obvious truth - that review scores are perhaps useful as a vague guide (at best), they're always going to be arbitrary to some extent, and the only way to get the important info is to read the damn review!

Something to ponder though... is it a coincidence that neither of the top Quake review sites (Ramshackle and TEAMShambler) had a scoring system? Probably not. :) 

And thank you for the review to you and Tronyn. 

But more likely because Shambler has never been good with numbers.

I think Frib sums it well.
and the only way to get the important info is to read the damn review!

Read the damn review! 

if the final score is combined from the 2 numbers than 18 is an excellent map. 9+9 for looks/play - nearly perfect(or 10+8?)
and 14 could be decent (7+7)...or maybe its 9+5? 6+8? 10+4? 4+10... uhm OK Im really lost

"General Misguide" indeed


PS: I love this score

Overall Vertical Map Pack: 15.5/20
(thats for 4 varied maps from DIFFERENT authors) 

yeee congtz for 5 years underworldfan and thks for the reviews!

if my english were better i�m sure i whould help you out with reviews... but you guys now my English skills :)

poor... 

I'd say everyone here is very grateful for the work you're doing, UWF + Tronyn. You're the only review site left, basicly.

As to the scores . . . do whatever the hell you want; it's your party. I was very happy to get an 18 for that pack I made, but in retrospect, to me at least, the number is distracting from the review. 

Just checking the updated site - with screenshots on the main page it's better, thanks :)

And happy anniversary! 

Something to ponder though... is it a coincidence that neither of the top Quake review sites (Ramshackle and TEAMShambler) had a scoring system?

Well, of the original "top Quake review sites" (SPQ Level Heaven, Crash's Quake Pages, Talon's Strike) two of them had numeric scores and one didn't. (SPQ heaven just said "if it's on this site, it's worth downloading" kind of like shambler did.) 

isn't it weird that "newcomer" websites like UWF and func are now 5 years old, which means they have been around for half of the entire history of the quake community? 

Yes, but Talon's Strike gave every level over 90 points out of 100, with a two sentence review. It was barely an archive of maps.

I visited that site religiously. 

Note that I can't remember the exact scoring system Talon used. Feel free to correct me. 

most maps recieved between 80 and 95, though I think it's partly because he didn't include any maps that really sucked. So it was still somewhat inflated (if he scored all maps in existence the range would probably be like 50-95.) 

A fine point, and well made! It would have been more appropriate to say that the sites I mentioned were my favourite sites, rather than arrogantly assuming that this automatically means they must be regarded as the best sites.

I guess everything has to be considered in context, but it is impossible to predict what might be coming up in the future. It's like map reviews - give something a 10 today, something better comes along tomorrow... and then everyone is complaining about the relative scoring of the maps. :D

Also, I just noticed that this post creation dialogue has a rather long undo queue... surprising, and very nice.